presentation about nature and nurture

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Definitions
• Interaction
• Contemporary Views

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual's personality, whereas nurture refers to how their environment (including relationships and experiences) impacts their development. Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality and development is one of the oldest philosophical debates within the field of psychology .

Learn how each is defined, along with why the issue of nature vs. nurture continues to arise. We also share a few examples of when arguments on this topic typically occur, how the two factors interact with each other, and contemporary views that exist in the debate of nature vs. nurture as it stands today.

Nature and Nurture Defined

To better understand the nature vs. nurture argument, it helps to know what each of these terms means.

• Nature refers largely to our genetics . It includes the genes we are born with and other hereditary factors that can impact how our personality is formed and influence the way that we develop from childhood through adulthood.
• Nurture encompasses the environmental factors that impact who we are. This includes our early childhood experiences, the way we were raised , our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.

A few biologically determined characteristics include genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other characteristics are tied to environmental influences, such as how a person behaves, which can be influenced by parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, one child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say please and thank you. Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on the contributions of genetics and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, suggested that certain factors are inborn or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. They contend that genetic traits are handed down from parents to their children and influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers, such as John Locke, believed in what is known as tabula rasa which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate . According to this notion, everything that we are is determined by our experiences.

Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in this belief as behaviorists feel that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

People with extreme views are called nativists and empiricists. Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance. Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

One example of when the argument of nature vs. nurture arises is when a person achieves a high level of academic success . Did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to elevated levels of intelligence, or is their success a result of an enriched environment?

The argument of nature vs. nurture can also be made when it comes to why a person behaves in a certain way. If a man abuses his wife and kids, for instance, is it because he was born with violent tendencies, or is violence something he learned by observing others in his life when growing up?

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Throughout the history of psychology , the debate of nature vs. nurture has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton coined the terms 'nature versus nurture' and 'eugenics' and believed that intelligence resulted from genetics. Galton also felt that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

The value placed on nature vs. nurture can even vary between the different branches of psychology , with some branches taking a more one-sided approach. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, emphasizing the role of nature.

In social psychology , on the other hand, researchers might conduct studies looking at how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture. Behaviorism is another branch that focuses on the impact of the environment on behavior.

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Some psychological theories of child development place more emphasis on nature and others focus more on nurture. An example of a nativist theory involving child development is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

An example of an empiricist child development theory is Albert Bandura's social learning theory . This theory says that people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

There is also some argument as to whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in the development of one's personality. The answer to this question varies depending on which personality development theory you use.

According to behavioral theories, our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, while biological theories suggest that personality is largely inherited. Then there are psychodynamic theories of personality that emphasize the impact of both.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

One could argue that either nature or nurture contributes to mental health development. Some causes of mental illness fall on the nature side of the debate, including changes to or imbalances with chemicals in the brain. Genetics can also contribute to mental illness development, increasing one's risk of a certain disorder or disease.

Mental disorders with some type of genetic component include autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder , major depression , and schizophrenia .

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental. This includes being exposed to environmental toxins, such as drugs or alcohol, while still in utero. Certain life experiences can also influence mental illness development, such as witnessing a traumatic event, leading to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Different types of mental health treatment can also rely more heavily on either nature or nurture in their treatment approach. One of the goals of many types of therapy is to uncover any life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture).

However, genetics (nature) can play a role in treatment as well. For instance, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup can impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for getting that person the help they need.

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Which is stronger: nature or nurture? Many researchers consider the interaction between heredity and environment—nature with nurture as opposed to nature versus nurture—to be the most important influencing factor of all.

For example, perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene is not enough as musical training during early childhood is needed for this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture. A child might inherit the genes for height. However, if they grow up in a deprived environment where proper nourishment isn't received, they might never attain the height they could have had if they'd grown up in a healthier environment.

A newer field of study that aims to learn more about the interaction between genes and environment is epigenetics . Epigenetics seeks to explain how environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed.

Some characteristics are biologically determined, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things, like life expectancy and height, have a strong biological component but are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Most experts recognize that neither nature nor nurture is stronger than the other. Instead, both factors play a critical role in who we are and who we become. Not only that but nature and nurture interact with each other in important ways all throughout our lifespan.

As a result, many in this field are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa. At the same time, this debate of nature vs. nurture still rages on in some areas, such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence .

While a few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, the reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist in personality and human development. Instead, these influences include genetic factors, environmental factors, and how each intermingles with the other.

Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature . Anal Verbal Behav . 2010;26(1):107-31. doi:10.1007/bf03393086

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered . Clin Med J . 2014;14(5):517-9 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-517

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9:13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross, SA. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;63(3):575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
• Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
• Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
• Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
• For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific  approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning.  It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

• Biological Approach
• Biology of Gender
• Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists.  In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities.  To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue.  What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q.  It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing.  The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene.  Science ,  301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult.  Addictive Behaviors ,  27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.  Psychological Bulletin ,  101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis.   Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  164 (10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders.  Psychological Bulletin ,  110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older.  Psychological Science ,  9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?.  Intelligence ,  24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence.  Nature Reviews Genetics ,  19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat .  Frontiers in neuroendocrinology ,  26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Further Information

• Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

• Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviorism
• Social Learning Theory
• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
• Social Roles
• Attachment Styles
• The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
• Visual Cliff Experiment
• Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
• Epigenetics
• Is Epigenetics Inherited?
• Physiological Psychology
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
• So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

• Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
• Agouti Mouse Study
• Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

How is nature defined, how is nurture defined, the nature vs. nurture debate, nature vs. nurture examples, what is empiricism (extreme nurture position), contemporary views of nature vs. nurture.

Nature vs. nurture is an age-old debate about whether genetics (nature) plays a bigger role in determining a person's characteristics than lived experience and environmental factors (nurture). The term "nature vs. nature" was coined by English naturalist Charles Darwin's younger half-cousin, anthropologist Francis Galton, around 1875.

In psychology, the extreme nature position (nativism) proposes that intelligence and personality traits are inherited and determined only by genetics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme nurture position (empiricism) asserts that the mind is a blank slate at birth; external factors like education and upbringing determine who someone becomes in adulthood and how their mind works. Both of these extreme positions have shortcomings and are antiquated.

This article explores the difference between nature and nurture. It gives nature vs. nurture examples and explains why outdated views of nativism and empiricism don't jibe with contemporary views. 

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

In the context of nature vs. nurture, "nature" refers to genetics and heritable factors that are passed down to children from their biological parents.

Genes and hereditary factors determine many aspects of someone’s physical appearance and other individual characteristics, such as a genetically inherited predisposition for certain personality traits.

Scientists estimate that 20% to 60% percent of temperament is determined by genetics and that many (possibly thousands) of common gene variations combine to influence individual characteristics of temperament.

However, the impact of gene-environment (or nature-nurture) interactions on someone's traits is interwoven. Environmental factors also play a role in temperament by influencing gene activity. For example, in children raised in an adverse environment (such as child abuse or violence), genes that increase the risk of impulsive temperamental characteristics may be activated (turned on).

Trying to measure "nature vs. nurture" scientifically is challenging. It's impossible to know precisely where the influence of genes and environment begin or end.

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

“Heritability”   describes the influence that genes have on human characteristics and traits. It's measured on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Very strong heritable traits like someone's eye color are ranked a 1.0.

Traits that have nothing to do with genetics, like speaking with a regional accent ranks a zero. Most human characteristics score between a 0.30 and 0.60 on the heritability scale, which reflects a blend of genetics (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed that "innate knowledge" is present in our minds at birth. Every parent knows that babies are born with innate characteristics. Anecdotally, it may seem like a kid's "Big 5" personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were predetermined before birth.

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

The Big 5 personality traits is a theory that describes the five basic dimensions of personality. It was developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers and is used as a framework to study people's behavior.

From a "nature" perspective, the fact that every child has innate traits at birth supports Plato's philosophical ideas about innatism. However, personality isn't set in stone. Environmental "nurture" factors can change someone's predominant personality traits over time. For example, exposure to the chemical lead during childhood may alter personality.

In 2014, a meta-analysis of genetic and environmental influences on personality development across the human lifespan found that people change with age. Personality traits are relatively stable during early childhood but often change dramatically during adolescence and young adulthood.

It's impossible to know exactly how much "nurture" changes personality as people get older. In 2019, a study of how stable personality traits are from age 16 to 66 found that people's Big 5 traits are both stable and malleable (able to be molded). During the 50-year span from high school to retirement, some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, while others appear to be set in stone.

Nurture refers to all of the external or environmental factors that affect human development such as how someone is raised, socioeconomic status, early childhood experiences, education, and daily habits.

Although the word "nurture" may conjure up images of babies and young children being cared for by loving parents, environmental factors and life experiences have an impact on our psychological and physical well-being across the human life span. In adulthood, "nurturing" oneself by making healthy lifestyle choices can offset certain genetic predispositions.

For example, a May 2022 study found that people with a high genetic risk of developing the brain disorder Alzheimer's disease can lower their odds of developing dementia (a group of symptoms that affect memory, thinking, and social abilities enough to affect daily life) by adopting these seven healthy habits in midlife:

• Staying active
• Healthy eating
• Losing weight
• Not smoking
• Reducing blood sugar
• Controlling cholesterol
• Maintaining healthy blood pressure

The nature vs. nurture debate centers around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed the genetic traits passed from parents to their children influence individual differences and traits. Other well-known philosophers believed the mind begins as a blank slate and that everything we are is determined by our experiences.

While early theories favored one factor over the other, experts today recognize there is a complex interaction between genetics and the environment and that both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.

Eye color and skin pigmentation are examples of "nature" because they are present at birth and determined by inherited genes. Developmental delays due to toxins (such as exposure to lead as a child or exposure to drugs in utero) are examples of "nurture" because the environment can negatively impact learning and intelligence.

In Child Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Nurture theorists would argue that language develops by listening and imitating adults and other children.

In addition, nurture theorists believe people learn by observing the behavior of others. For example, contemporary psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory suggests that aggression is learned through observation and imitation.

In Psychology

In psychology, the nature vs. nurture beliefs vary depending on the branch of psychology.

• Biopsychology:  Researchers analyze how the brain, neurotransmitters, and other aspects of our biology influence our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. emphasizing the role of nature.
• Social psychology: Researchers study how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, emphasizing the importance of nurture.
• Behaviorism: This theory of learning is based on the idea that our actions are shaped by our interactions with our environment.

In Personality Development

Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality development depends on different personality development theories.

• Behavioral theories: Our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences.
• Biological theories: Personality is mostly inherited which is demonstrated by a study in the 1990s that concluded identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins.
• Psychodynamic theories: Personality development involves both genetic predispositions and environmental factors and their interaction is complex.

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

For example, at least five mental health disorders are associated with some type of genetic component ( autism ,  attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ,  bipolar disorder , major depression, and  schizophrenia ).

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

• Being exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero 
• Witnessing a traumatic event, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood

In Mental Health Therapy

Mental health treatment can involve both nature and nurture. For example, a therapist may explore life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture) as well as family history of mental illness (nature).

At the same time, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup may impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for finding the right treatment for each individual.

 What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

Innatism emphasizes nature's role in shaping our minds and personality traits before birth. Nativism takes this one step further and proposes that all of people's mental and physical characteristics are inherited and predetermined at birth.

In its extreme form, concepts of nativism gave way to the early 20th century's racially-biased eugenics movement. Thankfully, "selective breeding," which is the idea that only certain people should reproduce in order to create chosen characteristics in offspring, and eugenics, arranged breeding, lost momentum during World War II. At that time, the Nazis' ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnic or religious associations) atrocities were exposed.

Philosopher John Locke's tabula rasa theory from 1689 directly opposes the idea that we are born with innate knowledge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate" and implies that our minds do not have innate knowledge at birth.

Locke was an empiricist who believed that all the knowledge we gain in life comes from sensory experiences (using their senses to understand the world), education, and day-to-day encounters after being born.

Today, looking at nature vs. nature in black-and-white terms is considered a misguided dichotomy (two-part system). There are so many shades of gray where nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to tease out how inherited traits and learned behaviors shape someone's unique characteristics or influence how their mind works.

The influences of nature and nurture in psychology are impossible to unravel. For example, imagine someone growing up in a household with an alcoholic parent who has frequent rage attacks. If that child goes on to develop a substance use disorder and has trouble with emotion regulation in adulthood, it's impossible to know precisely how much genetics (nature) or adverse childhood experiences (nurture) affected that individual's personality traits or issues with alcoholism.

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

"Epigenetics " means "on top of" genetics. It refers to external factors and experiences that turn genes "on" or "off." Epigenetic mechanisms alter DNA's physical structure in utero (in the womb) and across the human lifespan.

Epigenetics blurs the line between nature and nurture because it says that even after birth, our genetic material isn't set in stone; environmental factors can modify genes during one's lifetime. For example, cannabis exposure during critical windows of development can increase someone's risk of neuropsychiatric disease via epigenetic mechanisms.

Nature vs. nurture is a framework used to examine how genetics (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) influence human development and personality traits.

However, nature vs. nurture isn't a black-and-white issue; there are many shades of gray where the influence of nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to disentangle how nature and nurture overlap; they are inextricably intertwined. In most cases, nature and nurture combine to make us who we are. 

Waller JC. Commentary: the birth of the twin study--a commentary on francis galton’s “the history of twins.”   International Journal of Epidemiology . 2012;41(4):913-917. doi:10.1093/ije/dys100

The New York Times. " Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited ."

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

Feldman MW, Ramachandran S. Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture .  Phil Trans R Soc B . 2018;373(1743):20170064. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0064

Winch C. Innatism, concept formation, concept mastery and formal education: innatism, concept formation and formal education .  Journal of Philosophy of Education . 2015;49(4):539-556. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12121

Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis .  Psychological Bulletin . 2014;140(5):1303-1331. doi:10.1037/a0037091

Damian RI, Spengler M, Sutu A, Roberts BW. Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2019;117(3):674-695. doi:10.1037/pspp0000210

Tin A, Bressler J, Simino J, et al. Genetic risk, midlife life’s simple 7, and incident dementia in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study .  Neurology . Published online May 25, 2022. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200520 

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour .  Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9(1):13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Ross EJ, Graham DL, Money KM, Stanwood GD. Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn . Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(1):61-87. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.14

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961; 63 (3), 575–582 doi:10.1037/h0045925

Krapfl JE.  Behaviorism and society .  Behav Anal.  2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A. Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart . Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8. doi: 10.1126/science.2218526

National Institutes of Health.  Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment . Children (Basel). 2014 Nov 3;1(3):390-402. doi: 10.3390/children1030390

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al.  Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response .  Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

Toraño EG, García MG, Fernández-Morera JL, Niño-García P, Fernández AF. The impact of external factors on the epigenome:  in utero  and over lifetime .  BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:1-17. doi:10.1155/2016/2568635

Smith A, Kaufman F, Sandy MS, Cardenas A. Cannabis exposure during critical windows of development: epigenetic and molecular pathways implicated in neuropsychiatric disease .  Curr Envir Health Rpt . 2020;7(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00275-4

By Christopher Bergland Christopher Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned medical writer and science reporter. 

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: Nature vs. Nurture

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 73207

Developmental psychology seeks to understand the influence of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture) on human development.

Learning objective.

• Evaluate the reciprocal impacts between genes and the environment and the nature vs. nurture debate
• A significant issue in developmental psychology has been the relationship between the innateness of an attribute (whether it is part of our nature) and the environmental effects on that attribute (whether it is derived from or influenced by our environment, or nurture).
• Today, developmental psychologists rarely take polarized positions with regard to most aspects of development; instead, they investigate the relationship between innate and environmental influences.
• The biopsychosocial model states that biological, psychological, and social factors all play a significant role in human development.
• Environmental inputs can affect the expression of genes , a relationship called gene-environment interaction. An individual’s genes and their environment work together, communicating back and forth to create traits .
• The diathesis– stress model serves to explore how biological or genetic traits (diatheses) interact with environmental influences (stressors) to produce disorders, such as depression, anxiety , or schizophrenia .
• genotype That part (DNA sequence) of the genetic makeup of a cell, and therefore of an organism or individual, which determines a specific characteristic (phenotype) of that cell/organism/individual.
• heritability The ratio of the genetic variance of a population to its phenotypic variance; i.e., the proportion of variability that is genetic in origin.
• gene A unit of heredity; a segment of DNA or RNA that is transmitted from one generation to the next and carries genetic information such as the sequence of amino acids for a protein.
• trait An identifying characteristic, habit, or trend.
• innate Inborn; native; natural.

Developmental Psychology

Developmental psychology is the scientific study of changes that occur in human beings over the course of their lives. This field examines change and development across a broad range of topics, such as motor skills and other psycho-physiological processes; cognitive development involving areas like problem solving, moral and conceptual understanding; language acquisition; social, personality , and emotional development; and self- concept and identity formation. Developmental psychology explores the extent to which development is a result of gradual accumulation of knowledge or stage-like development, as well as the extent to which children are born with innate mental structures as opposed to learning through experience.

Nature Versus Nurture

A significant issue in developmental psychology is the relationship between the innateness of an attribute (whether it is part of our nature ) and the environmental effects on that attribute (whether it is influenced by our environment, or nurture ). This is often referred to as the nature vs. nurture debate, or nativism vs. empiricism.

• A nativist (“nature”) account of development would argue that the processes in question are innate and influenced by an organism’s genes. Natural human behavior is seen as the result of already-present biological factors, such as genetic code.
• An empiricist (“nurture”) perspective would argue that these processes are acquired through interaction with the environment. Nurtured human behavior is seen as the result of environmental interaction, which can provoke changes in brain structure and chemistry. For example, situations of extreme stress can cause problems like depression.

The nature vs. nurture debate seeks to understand how our personalities and traits are produced by our genetic makeup and biological factors, and how they are shaped by our environment, including our parents, peers, and culture . For instance, why do biological children sometimes act like their parents? Is it because of genetic similarity, or the result of the early childhood environment and what children learn from their parents?

Interaction of Genes and the Environment

Today, developmental psychologists rarely take such polarized positions (either/or) with regard to most aspects of development; instead, they investigate the relationship between innate and environmental influences (both/and). Developmental psychologists will often use the biopsychosocial model to frame their research: this model states that biological, psychological, and social (socio-economical, socio-environmental, and cultural) factors all play a significant role in human development.

We are all born with specific genetic traits inherited from our parents, such as eye color, height, and certain personality traits. Beyond our basic genotype , however, there is a deep interaction between our genes and our environment: our unique experiences in our environment influence whether and how particular traits are expressed, and at the same time, our genes influence how we interact with our environment (Diamond, 2009; Lobo, 2008). There is a reciprocal interaction between nature and nurture as they both shape who we become, but the debate continues as to the relative contributions of each.

Heritability refers to the origin of differences among people; it is a concept in biology that describes how much of the variation of a trait in a population is due to genetic differences in that population. Individual development, even of highly heritable traits such as eye color, depends not only on heritability but on a range of environmental factors, such as the other genes present in the organism and the temperature and oxygen levels during development. Environmental inputs can affect the expression of genes, a relationship called gene-environment interaction. Genes and the environment work together, communicating back and forth to create traits.

Some concrete behavioral traits are dependent upon one’s environment, home, or culture, such as the language one speaks, the religion one practices, and the political party one supports. However, some traits which reflect underlying talents and temperaments—such as how proficient at a language, how religious, or how liberal or conservative—can be partially heritable.

This chart illustrates three patterns one might see when studying the influence of genes and environment on individual traits. Each of these traits is measured and compared between monozygotic (identical) twins, biological siblings who are not twins, and adopted siblings who are not genetically related. Trait A shows a high sibling correlation but little heritability (illustrating the importance of environment). Trait B shows a high heritability, since the correlation of the trait rises sharply with the degree of genetic similarity. Trait C shows low heritability as well as low correlation generally, suggesting that the degree to which individuals display trait C has little to do with either genes or predictable environmental factors.

Heritability Estimates

This chart illustrates three patterns one might see when studying the influence of genes and environment on individual traits. Typically, monozygotic twins will have a high correlation of sibling traits, while biological siblings will have less in common, and adoptive siblings will have less than that. However, this can vary widely by trait.

Diathesis-Stress Model

The diathesis–stress model is a psychological theory that attempts to explain behavior as a predispositional vulnerability together with stress from life experiences. The term diathesis derives from the Greek term for disposition, or vulnerability, and it can take the form of genetic, psychological, biological, or situational factors. The diathesis, or predisposition , interacts with the subsequent stress response of an individual. Stress refers to a life event or series of events that disrupt a person’s psychological equilibrium and potentially serve as a catalyst to the development of a disorder. Thus, the diathesis–stress model serves to explore how biological or genetic traits (diatheses) interact with environmental influences (stressors) to produce disorders, such as depression, anxiety, or schizophrenia.

• Nature vs. Nurture. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/human-development-14/introduction-to-human-development-69/nature-vs-nurture-265-12800/ . Project : Boundless Psychology. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Introduction to Nature and Nurture

What you’ll learn to do: explain how nature, nurture, and epigenetics influence personality and behavior.

H ow do we become who we are? Traditionally, people’s answers have placed them in one of two camps: nature or nurture. The one says genes determine an individual while the other claims the environment is the linchpin for development. Since the 16th century, when the terms “nature” and “nurture” first came into use, many people have spent ample time debating which is more important, but these discussions have more often led to ideological cul-de-sacs rather than pinnacles of insight.

New research into epigenetics—the science of how the environment influences genetic expression—is changing the conversation. As psychologist David S. Moore explains in his newest book, The Developing Genome , this burgeoning field reveals that what counts is not what genes you have so much as what your genes are doing . And what your genes are doing is influenced by the ever-changing environment they’re in. Factors like stress, nutrition, and exposure to toxins all play a role in how genes are expressed—essentially which genes are turned on or off. Unlike the static conception of nature or nurture, epigenetic research demonstrates how genes and environments continuously interact to produce characteristics throughout a lifetime.

Learning Objectives

• Investigate the historic nature vs. nurture debate and describe techniques psychologists use to learn about the origin of traits
• Explain the basic principles of the theory of evolution by natural selection, genetic variation, and mutation
• Describe epigenetics and examine how gene-environment interactions are critical for expression of physical and psychological characteristics

attributions

Modification, adaptation, and original content. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License:  CC BY: Attribution

DNA image . Provided by: Wikimedia. License:  CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

The End of Nature Versus Nurture . Authored by: Evan Nesterak. License:  CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © by Utah Tech University Psychology Department is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Nature vs. Nurture

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

The expression “nature vs. nurture” describes the question of how much a person's characteristics are formed by either “nature” or “nurture.” “Nature” means innate biological factors (namely genetics ), while “nurture” can refer to upbringing or life experience more generally.

Traditionally, “nature vs. nurture” has been framed as a debate between those who argue for the dominance of one source of influence or the other, but contemporary experts acknowledge that both “nature” and “nurture” play a role in psychological development and interact in complex ways.

• The Meaning of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Nature-vs.-Nurture Debate
• Identifying Genetic and Environmental Factors

The wording of the phrase “nature vs. nurture” makes it seem as though human individuality— personality traits, intelligence , preferences, and other characteristics—must be based on either the genes people are born with or the environment in which they grew up. The reality, as scientists have shown, is more complicated, and both these and other factors can help account for the many ways in which individuals differ from each other.

The words “nature” and “nurture” themselves can be misleading. Today, “ genetics ” and “environment” are frequently used in their place—with one’s environment including a broader range of experiences than just the nurturing received from parents or caregivers. Further, nature and nurture (or genetics and environment) do not simply compete to influence a person, but often interact with each other; “nature and nurture” work together. Finally, individual differences do not entirely come down to a person’s genetic code or developmental environment—to some extent, they emerge due to messiness in the process of development as well.

A person’s biological nature can affect a person’s experience of the environment. For example, a person with a genetic disposition toward a particular trait, such as aggressiveness, may be more likely to have particular life experiences (including, perhaps, receiving negative reactions from parents or others). Or, a person who grows up with an inclination toward warmth and sociability may seek out and elicit more positive social responses from peers. These life experiences could, in turn, reinforce an individual’s initial tendencies. Nurture or life experience more generally may also modify the effects of nature—for example, by expanding or limiting the extent to which a naturally bright child receives encouragement, access to quality education , and opportunities for achievement.

Epigenetics—the science of modifications in how genes are expressed— illustrates the complex interplay between “nature” and “nurture.” An individual’s environment, including factors such as early-life adversity, may result in changes in the way that parts of a person’s genetic code are “read.” While these epigenetic changes do not override the important influence of genes in general, they do constitute additional ways in which that influence is filtered through “nurture” or the environment.

Theorists and researchers have long battled over whether individual traits and abilities are inborn or are instead forged by experiences after birth. The debate has had broad implications: The real or perceived sources of a person’s strengths and vulnerabilities matter for fields such as education, philosophy , psychiatry , and clinical psychology. Today’s consensus—that individual differences result from a combination of inherited and non-genetic factors—strikes a more nuanced middle path between nature- or nurture-focused extremes.

The debate about nature and nurture has roots that stretch back at least thousands of years, to Ancient Greek theorizing about the causes of personality. During the modern era, theories emphasizing the role of either learning and experience or biological nature have risen and fallen in prominence—with genetics gaining increasing acknowledgment as an important (though not exclusive) influence on individual differences in the later 20th century and beyond.

“Nature versus nurture” was used by English scientist Francis Galton. In 1874, he published the book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture , arguing that inherited factors were responsible for intelligence and other characteristics.

Genetic determinism emphasizes the importance of an individual’s nature in development. It is the view that genetics is largely or totally responsible for an individual’s psychological characteristics and behavior. The term “biological determinism” is often used synonymously.

The blank slate (or “tabula rasa”) view of the mind emphasizes the importance of nurture and the environment. Notably described by English philosopher John Locke in the 1600s, it proposed that individuals are born with a mind like an unmarked chalkboard and that its contents are based on experience and learning. In the 20th century, major branches of psychology proposed a primary role for nurture and experience , rather than nature, in development, including Freudian psychoanalysis and behaviorism.

Modern scientific methods have allowed researchers to advance further in understanding the complex relationships between genetics, life experience, and psychological characteristics, including mental health conditions and personality traits. Overall, the findings of contemporary studies underscore that with some exceptions—such as rare diseases caused by mutations in a single gene—no one factor, genetic or environmental, solely determines how a characteristic develops.

Scientists use multiple approaches to estimate how important genetics are for any given trait, but one of the most influential is the twin study. While identical (or monozygotic) twins share the same genetic code, fraternal (or dizygotic) twins share about 50 percent of the same genes, like typical siblings. Scientists are able to estimate the degree to which the variation in a particular trait, like extraversion , is explained by genetics in part by analyzing how similar identical twins are on that trait, compared to fraternal twins. ( These studies do have limitations, and estimates based on one population may not closely reflect all other populations.) 

It’s hard to call either “nature” or “nurture,” genes or the environment, more important to human psychology. The impact of one set of factors or the other depends on the characteristic, with some being more strongly related to one’s genes —for instance, autism appears to be more heritable than depression . But in general, psychological traits are shaped by a balance of interacting genetic and non-genetic influences.

Both genes and environmental factors can contribute to a person developing mental illness. Research finds that a major part of the variation in the risk for psychiatric conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, and schizophrenia can be attributed to genetic differences. But not all of that risk is genetic, and life experiences, such as early-life abuse or neglect, may also affect risk of mental illness (and some individuals, based on their genetics, are likely more susceptible to environmental effects than others).

Like other psychological characteristics, personality is partly heritable. Research suggests less than half of the difference between people on measures of personality traits can be attributed to genes (one recent overall estimate is 40 percent). Non-genetic factors appear to be responsible for an equal or greater portion of personality differences between individuals. Some theorize that the social roles people adopt and invest in as they mature are among the more important non-genetic factors in personality development.

How do we make sense of new experiences? Ultimately, it's about how we categorize them—which we often do by "lumping" or "splitting" them.

How are twin studies used to answer questions related to the nature-and-nurture debate?

All I ask of strangers in the store—don't judge me as being less competent because my hair is grey and my skin well-textured. I’m just out doing my best, as we all are.

The new Biophilia Reactivity Hypothesis argues our attraction to the natural world is not an instinct but a measurable temperament trait.

A Personal Perspective: How can Adam Grant's newest book help OCD sufferers? In more ways than you think.

Do selfish genes mean that humans are designed to be selfish?

Are classical musicians more "craft" and jazz musicians more "creative"? A question for debate.

Where all beliefs and behavior come from.

Many people will outlive their money because of not saving for the future. Sadly, many people are also going to run out of health before they run out of life. Here's how not to.

Our cultures shape us in profound ways. The latest research from cultural psychology offers fascinating insights into the nature-nurture interaction.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation on theme: "Nature and Nurture."— Presentation transcript:

Myers’ PSYCHOLOGY (7th Ed)

Introducing Psychology

Beginnings PART 2 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.

Nature vs. Nurture How Genes and Environment Influence Behavior.

CHAPTER 2 NATURE WITH NURTURE.

NATURE vs. NURTURE.

Chapter 3 Nature and Nurture of Behavior. Every nongenetic influence, from prenatal nutrition to the people and things around us. environment.

General Psychology. Scripture Matthew 5: 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.. Those who strive to prevent contention,

Nature and Nurture in Psychology Module 03. Behavior Genetics The study of the relative effects of genes and environmental influences our behavior.

UNIT 3C.  Behavior Genetics: Predicting Individual Differences  Evolutionary Psychology: Understanding Human Nature  Reflections on Nature and Nurture.

1 PSYCHOLOGY (8th Edition, in Modules) David Myers.

Gender characteristics, whether biologically or socially influenced, by which people define male and female.

Chapter 2: Genetic Bases of Child Development. Chapter 2: Genetic Bases of Child Development Chapter 2 has two modules: Module 2.1 Mechanisms of Heredity.

1 Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity Chapter 3.

Investigating the genetic basis of behaviour

Myers’ PSYCHOLOGY Chapter 3 The Nature and Nurture Of Behavior.

1 Genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, and Behavior 3C.

Nature and Nurture. QOTD Megan Rosa What do you think has a bigger impact in peoples lives in making them who they are? A. Nature (environment) B. Nuture.

Behavioral Genetics: Predicting Individual Differences Module 14.

Thinking About Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior Charles T. Blair-Broeker Randal M. Ernst.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

• Preferences

Nature and Nurture - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nature and Nurture

Nature and nurture what is the difference between behavior genetics molecular genetics and evolutionary psychology what do we mean by nature and nurture * – powerpoint ppt presentation.

• What is the difference between behavior genetics molecular genetics and evolutionary psychology?
• What do we mean by nature and nurture?
• Minnesota Twin Studies - Monozygotic (mz) and dizygotic (dz) twins separated at birth
• Adoption studies Comparisons of adopted children and their biological and adoptive parents
• Temperament studies findings. Role of heredity, predispositions and stability
• Identical Twins Reared Together v.
• Identical Twins Reared Apart
• Same genes, Same genes
• Same environment Different environment
• Adoption agencies try to place twins in similar families so the variation in environment may be small, and
• There is a very limited sample
• The percentage of trait variation within a group that can be attributed to genetic differences (v. environmental). For example, assume you all were raised in identical, enriched environments all differences in I.Q. are then due to genetic difference (100 heritability)
• Determined by comparing MZ twins separated at birth. Remember, heritability estimates are NOT measures of the importance of genes in the production of a trait (e.g., I inherit 65 of my intelligence from)
• Note Two related siblings that grow up in the same family are strikingly different in personality (as Im sure many of you can attest to).
• What do we mean by environment?
• Prenatal experiences, early childhood experience, parental and peer influence, culture
• Early experience Rosenzweigs and Greenoughs enriched environment studies, issue of developmental plasticity, synaptic pruning, and epigenetics research
• Peer influence over parental? Judith Harris
• Cultural influences, e.g., collective v. individualistic societies, cross-cultural research notes similarities and variations across culture
• Peers are influential in such areas as learning
• to cooperate with others, gaining popularity,
• and developing interactions
• Judith Rich Harris Do Parents Matter?
• Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression caused by environmental factors, not by changes in the underlying DNA sequence. Changes may remain for the remainder of the cell's life and may last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism, instead, environmental factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently
• ScienceNow Epigenetics
• BBC Article
• Critiquing the Evolutionary Perspective
• The central premise is impossible to prove. Predictive power is null.
• Its hindsight bias, reductionist and dangerous. Potential justification for harmful behaviors and attitudes
• EPs respond
• EP does not imply genetic determinism, in fact adaptation is premised in environmental influence
• EP instructs us to change our destructive evolutionary behaviors

PowerShow.com is a leading presentation sharing website. It has millions of presentations already uploaded and available with 1,000s more being uploaded by its users every day. Whatever your area of interest, here you’ll be able to find and view presentations you’ll love and possibly download. And, best of all, it is completely free and easy to use.

You might even have a presentation you’d like to share with others. If so, just upload it to PowerShow.com. We’ll convert it to an HTML5 slideshow that includes all the media types you’ve already added: audio, video, music, pictures, animations and transition effects. Then you can share it with your target audience as well as PowerShow.com’s millions of monthly visitors. And, again, it’s all free.

About the Developers

PowerShow.com is brought to you by  CrystalGraphics , the award-winning developer and market-leading publisher of rich-media enhancement products for presentations. Our product offerings include millions of PowerPoint templates, diagrams, animated 3D characters and more.

A Close Look at Nature vs. Nurture

Psychology Professor shares her research for University’s Distinguished Scholar lecture

Posted in: Homepage News and Events , Psychology

“If you’ve ever been around a crying infant, you may have concluded that the world of a newborn is one great ‘blooming, buzzing confusion’ …” So begins the lecture – and the nature vs. nurture debate – presented by this academic year’s University Distinguished Scholar, Psychology Professor Laura Lakusta.

For the past 15 years, Lakusta has focused on language and cognitive development, and most recently leadership, in research within one of oldest philosophical fields of psychology.

“Is the world of a newborn really a big ‘booming, buzzing confusion’?” she asks referencing theorist William James. “Or do infants initially, and that is from birth, bring a rich knowledge base which may serve as a foundation and support subsequent learning?”

In her lecture to the University community – presented virtually due to the state’s stay-at-home orders –  Lakusta explores the timeless theme while sharing her own extensive studies on inherited traits and learned behaviors. Research makes it increasingly clear that both nature and nurture play a role, she says.

The University’s Distinguished Scholar Award recognizes Montclair State faculty who have developed a distinguished record of scholarly or creative achievement, says University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Willard Gingerich. “This award provided Laura with enhanced opportunities to implement two active, competitive research programs and the opportunity to share with the campus community her work exploring the domains of language and cognitive development, and a new line of research that explores the impact of nature and nurture in leadership development.”

As Lakusta explains in the presentation, “Nature and Nurture in Spatial Cognition and Beyond,” the nature and nurture theme is by no means solely of interest to the field of psychology, “but one that applies to a range of disciplines, including philosophy, cognitive science, linguistics, education, biology, genetics, et cetera, et cetera.”

“The field is in agreement that it’s not an either/or question. It’s not, is it nature or is it nurture that contributes to development. But the question is how do they contribute? How can we understand how nature and nurture work together to drive development forward?”

Lakusta has published repeatedly – often with her students – in some of the most competitive journals in cognitive and developmental psychology, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and since 2008 she has presented more than 50 invited papers and conference posters.

The studies of language and cognition – which have been supported with two different grants totaling about $900,000 from the National Science Foundation – test whether and how representations of spatial knowledge in children 6 months to 5 years can be influenced by environmental input. A portion of this work is a collaborative project with Barbara Landau, professor of Cognitive Science at Johns Hopkins University.

The main finding is that infants’ representations of events can support language learning. In the lab setting, for example, the researchers look at how infants and children interpret the world around them, and think about objects and actions. As explained in the lecture, this includes simple events, such as a duck moving out of a bowl or a leaf blowing into a box.

“You may be surprised at how much infants actually do seem to know within just a few months of life or even just a year,” Lakusta says.

A new study of leadership development, in collaboration with Montclair State Psychology Professor Jennifer Bragger , explores the broad questions of whether children are predisposed to develop into certain types of leaders and how environmental context may influence leadership development. Specifically, Lakusta and Bragger are testing how children, adolescents and adults perceive the distinctions between different leadership types, and whether Theory of Mind development, humility and self-awareness play a role in leadership emergence.

“We’re looking at how people become servant leaders,” Lakusta says. “These are leaders that primarily lead by focusing on their followers. They lead by empowering their followers by guiding, by developing their followers. By doing this, by focusing on their followers, they’re actually able to attain goals.”

The research takes place in Montclair State’s Cognitive and Language Development Lab , where Lakusta leads teams of student researchers. The lab is among the University’s clinical labs in psychology that have received grant funding for research.

“The students really made it happen,” Lakusta says. “They do everything from reading and presenting empirical and theoretical research to coding and analyzing and interpreting data to assisting me with participant testing. They go out into the community on a Sunday afternoon to help recruit children at community fairs. They assist with IRB (Institutional Review Board). The research would not be possible without them.”

Story by Staff Writer Marilyn Joyce Lehren .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 November 2023

The nature and nurture of network evolution

• Bin Zhou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5816-445X 1 ,
• Petter Holme 2 , 3 ,
• Zaiwu Gong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2273-2726 1 ,
• Choujun Zhan 4 ,
• Yao Huang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6584-607X 5 ,
• Xin Lu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3547-6493 6 &
• Xiangyi Meng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5184-7648 7 , 8  

Nature Communications volume  14 , Article number:  7031 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6297 Accesses

1 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Complex networks
• Nonlinear phenomena

Although the origin of the fat-tail characteristic of the degree distribution in complex networks has been extensively researched, the underlying cause of the degree distribution characteristic across the complete range of degrees remains obscure. Here, we propose an evolution model that incorporates only two factors: the node’s weight, reflecting its innate attractiveness (nature), and the node’s degree, reflecting the external influences (nurture). The proposed model provides a good fit for degree distributions and degree ratio distributions of numerous real-world networks and reproduces their evolution processes. Our results indicate that the nurture factor plays a dominant role in the evolution of social networks. In contrast, the nature factor plays a dominant role in the evolution of non-social networks, suggesting that whether nodes are people determines the dominant factor influencing the evolution of real-world networks.

Similar content being viewed by others

Collective intelligence: A unifying concept for integrating biology across scales and substrates

Patrick McMillen & Michael Levin

Pleiotropy, epistasis and the genetic architecture of quantitative traits

Trudy F. C. Mackay & Robert R. H. Anholt

Reconstructing the evolution history of networked complex systems

Junya Wang, Yi-Jiao Zhang, … Yanqing Hu

Introduction

Pioneered by Helen Jennings in the 1930’s 1 , the degree distribution is a key characteristic of empirical network studies. Previous studies on the degree distribution of complex networks have primarily focused on the tail of the distribution, in particular when it exhibits a power law, which has led to the theory that “scale-free networks” are ubiquitous in nature 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . Numerous network evolution models have been proposed to explain the mechanism that causes the fat-tail of the degree distribution to follow a power law 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , with the preferential attachment mechanism in the Barabási–Albert (BA) model being the most famous 13 . However, the debate about whether complex networks truly have scale-free properties has persisted 12 , 14 , 15 . Some scholars have proposed that we need to understand the scale-free properties and evolutionary origins of complex networks from a new perspective 16 , 17 , 18 . While the tail of the degree distribution may be approximated as a power law for many real-world networks 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , the bulk (the small-degree end) tends to bend off in various networks such as Facebook (friendships network), Google (informational network), the patent network of USA (technological network), etc 17 , 26 . In this work, we will propose a model for network evolution with an emergent degree distribution that fits observations throughout the degree range, including both the tail and the bulk.

Our proposed network evolution model incorporates only two parameters: an intrinsic node weight (a.k.a. “fitness” 27 or “quality” 28 ) and the accumulated degree. These parameters effectively capture the dual influences of inherent characteristics (referred to as the “nature” factor) and environmental influences (referred to as the “nurture” factor) on the evolution of each node. We begin by demonstrating the core idea and formulation of our model. Following this, we proceed to solve the model analytically, focusing on deriving the analytical solutions for the distributions of degree k as well as the degree ratio η , more commonly referred to as the degree–degree distance 17 , 29 . We find that the statistically optimal fit to these analytical solutions accurately reproduces both the degree distribution and degree ratio distributions of 32 real-world networks. Additionally, we verify that our model can produce the actual growth process in several networks. We find that the nurture factor of nodes predominantly influences the evolution of social networks, implying that the node degree has a greater impact on node evolution than the node weight in social networks. Whereas the nature factor of nodes plays a leading role in the evolution of non-social networks, suggesting that the impact of node weight on node evolution is greater than that of node degree in non-social networks. This observation implies that whether nodes are people plays a crucial role in determining the dominant factor driving the evolution of real-world networks. It also indicates that collective human behaviors, within the context of social interactions, tend to favor the nurture factor over the nature factor.

Not only does the model provide statistically optimal fittings to the observed distributions, but it also reveals the evolutionary origin of complex networks in terms of the interplay between both nature and nurture factors. Compared with the classical complex network models 8 , 13 , 28 , 30 , the model still includes the preferential attachment mechanism, leading us to conclude that the scale-free property of complex networks should be understood as a mechanism, such as the preferential attachment mechanism, rather than a specific index, thus potentially resolving the long-standing debate about whether complex networks have scale-free properties.

Nature–nurture model

Our study posits that the evolution of complex networks is closely tied to the interplay between two key factors: the node’s weight reflecting its appeal within the network, which reflects the nature aspect of development, and the node’s degree, which signifies its nurture factor. This coupling of the nature and nurture factors of nodes plays a crucial role in shaping the network’s evolution, as shown in Fig.  1 .

Suppose there are two nodes of different node weights and degrees in the network. The red node has a larger weight but a smaller degree (with three incident links). The blue node has a smaller weight but a larger degree (with six incident links). As new links are added to the network, if the network evolution is nature-dominant, then new links prefer connecting to the red node; else, if the network evolution is nurture-dominant, then new links prefer connecting to the blue node.

Before nodes join the network, we consider that their innate attractiveness are different in real world, similar to the Matthew effect 31 . For example, on Facebook, a user’s social prestige, status, and influence serve as their innate weight, with most users being ordinary and only a few having high social prestige, status, and influence. The more social prestige, status, and influence an individual has, the more attractive they are 32 . In general, we assume that the distribution of node weight ω in a complex network follows a power-law distribution ~ ω − α , with α  ≥ 0. This assumption also covers cases of a uniform distribution when α  → 0, or a short-tail (e.g., exponential) distribution when α  →  ∞ (see  Supplementary Discussion) . The larger the nature weight ω of a node, the higher its probability Π( ω ) of establishing new links with other nodes.

On the other hand, the node’s degree k reflects its nurtured attractiveness, which is akin to the snowball effect 33 or recommendation systems 28 . Taking Twitter as an example, as a user’s number of followers grows, their attractiveness to other users increases, further boosting their follower count. The larger the nurture degree k of a node, the higher its probability Π( k ) of establishing new links with other nodes.

Consequently, nodes with larger ω and k are more prone to establishing new links. This motivates us to choose the probability of a node being preferentially selected to form new links with other node as Π( ω ,  k ) ~  ω k  + a positive constant. This formulation is in line with the approach taken in the Bianconi–Barabási model 30 , where the probability is also a function of the product of ω and k .

Finally, we incorporate a cutoff parameter, \({\omega }_{\max }\) , which restricts the value of ω to fall within the range of 1 to \({\omega }_{\max }\) . This critical parameter serves to regulate the model’s inclination towards either “nature” or “nurture.” A smaller \({\omega }_{\max }\) results in less variability in the distribution of the “nature” influence, suggesting that the model leans towards “nurture.” Conversely, a larger \({\omega }_{\max }\) allows for greater variability, indicating that the model favors “nature.”

Taken together, our model is built on the following rules:

Initially, there are N nodes but no link in the network. Each node i  = 1, 2,  ⋯   ,  N is assigned a weight ω i . Similar to other models with node weights generating the degree distribution 8 , 30 , the weight for each node is randomly sampled from a truncated power-law probability distribution, following the form ~ ω − α , within a finite domain of \(\omega \in [1,\, \, {\omega }_{\max }]\) .

At each time step, two nodes are randomly and independently chosen, and a link is established between them. The probability of choosing a node depends on the nature weight ω and the nurture degree k of the node, given by

where b is a positive constant.

After T time steps, a network of N nodes and T links is generated.

The degree distribution of the nature-nurture model can be written as follows:

where n i ( T ,  k ) is the probability that node i (of weight ω i ) has degree k at time step T and \(c=\left(1-\alpha \right)/\left({\omega }_{\max }^{1-\alpha }-1\right)\) is the normalization coefficient. Further approximations allow us to derive an analytical form of P ( k ) (see “Methods”).

To demonstrate that the model can accurately replicate multiple topological features, not just degrees, in complex networks, we examine a link-based characteristic: the degree ratio η , defined as the ratio of the larger and smaller degree for each link ( i ,  j ), expressed as \(\eta=\max ({k}_{i}/{k}_{j},\, \, {k}_{j}/{k}_{i})\) . Note that this can also be reformulated as \(\ln \eta=\left|\ln {k}_{i}-\ln {k}_{j}\right|\) , which serves as a semi-metric on the set of edges 34 . Hence, η (or more precisely, \(\ln \eta\) ) is often referred to as the degree–degree distance 17 . Notably, in many empirical networks, the degree ratio distribution exhibits a clearer power-law behavior than the degree distribution, signifying its usefulness in examining the scale-free properties of networks. The degree ratio distribution is given by

where n i j ( T ,  k i ,  k j , ( i ,  j )) denotes the joint probability that nodes i and j have degrees k i and k j and they are also connected by a link (see “Methods”).

The reliability of the analytical solutions of our model is demonstrated through a comparison of the degree distributions and degree ratio distributions obtained from simulations and Eqs. ( 2 ) and ( 3 )), respectively (Supplementary Fig.  1) . The agreement between the simulation and analysis results confirms the reliability of the analytical solutions of the nature–nurture model.

We also present two supplementary models to serve as controls: a nature-only model and a nurture-only model (see “Methods”). In the former, we eliminate the effect of the degree k , so that Π( ω ,  k ) → Π( ω )  ∝   ω , only depending on ω . The resulting degree and degree-ratio distributions are as follows:

which can be further approximated to a classical power-law distribution P ( k )  ∝   k − α   17 , and

where \({\mu }_{i}=2{\omega }_{i}T/N\bar{\omega }\) and \({\sigma }_{i}=\left(1-2{\omega }_{i}/N\bar{\omega }\right)2{\omega }_{i}T/N\bar{\omega }\) , and \(\bar{\omega }={(2-\alpha )}^{-1}{\left({\omega }_{\max }^{1-\alpha }-1\right)}^{-1}(1-\alpha )\left({\omega }_{\max }^{2-\alpha }-1\right)\) is the average node weight of the network.

In the nurture-only model, we eliminate the effect of the weight ω , so that Π( ω ,  k ) → Π( k )  ∝   k  +  b , only depending on k . In the b  → 0 limit, the resulting degree and degree-ratio distributions are 29 :

which is a power-law distribution with an exponential cutoff, and

where A  =  b and B  = 2 −1 b N T −1 , respectively.

We have gathered thirty-two real-world networks that span across social, informational, technological, biological and economic domains from the Colorado Index of Complex Networks (ICON). These networks vary in size, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of nodes. Our data includes the most representative network platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube, Google, and Academia, among others. Descriptions for these networks can be found in Supplementary Table  1 .

Figure  2 (and Supplementary Fig.  2) shows the optimal fitting results of the distributions of both degree k [Eq. ( 2 )] and degree-ratio η [Eq. ( 3 )] for thirty-two real-world networks. The parameters N and T in Eqs. ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) are fixed as the numbers of nodes and links of the fitted data, respectively. The optimal values of the fitting parameters \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b are provided in Supplementary Table  2 . We find that the nature-nurture model simultaneously reproduces both the degree and the degree ratio distributions of real-world networks fairly well. These results suggest that the coupling of both nature and nurture factors of nodes plays an essential role in the evolution of complex networks.

A – P The observed degree distribution P ( k ) (blue) and degree-ratio distribution P ( η ) (red) in 32 real-world networks (other 16 in Supplementary Fig.  2) are fitted based on Eqs. ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the nature–nurture model. The parameters N and T match the number of nodes and links in the empirical data. The other fitting parameters, \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b are provided in Supplementary Table  2 .

In particular, Fig.  3A shows the optimal values of \({\omega }_{\max }\) for the real-world networks, with blue and red circles representing eleven social and 21 non-social networks, respectively. We observe that the social and non-social networks are distributed in two distinct regions. In social networks, \({\omega }_{\max }\) tends to be smaller, while in non-social networks, \({\omega }_{\max }\) tends to be larger. This suggests that the nature factor of nodes plays a dominant role in the evolution of social networks, while the nurture factor of nodes plays a dominant role in the evolution of non-social networks. To corroborate this observation, we calculated the corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc) 35 —a statistical estimator that deals with the risks of both overfitting and underfitting—for the optimal fits of the distributions of k and η (Supplementary Table  3 and Fig.  3) . This was conducted for the nature-nurture model as well as the control models, namely, the nature-only and nurture-only models. We find that the nature–nurture model is the most favored by AICc for 31 (96.9%) of the 32 real-world networks. By comparing only the control models [Fig.  3B, C ], we find that the nurture-only model is favored by AICc for 81.8% of the social networks, yet the nature-only model is favored for 85.7% of the non-social networks. These results provide evidence that while the nature and nurture factors tend to dominate in the evolution of non-social and social networks, respectively, it is essential to consider the contributions from both aspects for an faithful representation of real-world network evolution.

A Optimal fitting parameter \({\omega }_{\max }\) of the nature-nurture model in various real-world networks. Social networks (blue) generally exhibit lower \({\omega }_{\max }\) values compared to non-social networks (red). B , C Preference for the nature-only (red) or nurture-only (blue) model in fitting social and non-social networks, respectively, based on the corrected Akaike information criterion for small sample sizes (AICc) provided in Supplementary Table  3 .

Two networks, Academia (tracking citations between academic papers) and Zhihu (a Chinese Q&A forum), are accompanied by timestamps, allowing us to explore how their degree and degree-ratio distributions evolve over various time periods. Figure  4 shows the fitting results for the initial, middle, and final stages during the evolution of the two networks. Again, the parameters N and T in Eqs. ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) are fixed as the numbers of nodes and links of the fitted data. The other fitting parameters, \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b , at each stage are fixed to the optimal values of the Academia and Zhihu networks (obtained from Supplementary Table  2) .

The observed degree distribution P ( k ) (blue) and degree-ratio distribution P ( η ) (red) in A – C Academia (a non-social network) and D – F Zhihu (a social network) are captured at different timestamped stages. Solid and dashed lines represent fits based on Eqs. ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the nature–nurture model, with AICc provided (Supplementary Table  5) . The parameters N and T match the number of nodes and links in the empirical data at each evolutionary stage (Supplementary Table  4) . The other fitting parameters, \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b are set according to the optimal values obtained in Supplementary Table  2 .

The evolution fitting results (Supplementary Table  4) demonstrate that the nature-nurture model continues to simultaneously reproduce the distributions of k and η throughout the evolution process, from the initial to the final stage (Fig.  4 ). This confirms the model’s ability to capture the evolutionary dynamics of complex networks. Moreover, the nature–nurture model continues to be the most favored by AICc, compared to the control models (Supplementary Table  5) during the evolution. Between the nature-only and nurture-only models, the former is more favored by AICc for the non-social network Academia, while the latter is more favored for the social network Zhihu. The consistency of results across static and evolutionary networks highlights the universal applicability of the nature-nurture model.

The biggest difference between nodes in social networks and those in non-social networks is that nodes in social networks represent users, who are people with strong subjectivity and self-modification abilities in the postnatal evolution, albeit limited by innate factors. On the other hand, nodes in non-social networks represent non-people entities with innate attributes and functions, generally lacking the ability to self-modify in the postnatal evolution process. In human society, we may believe that a person’s efforts should carry more weight than their social background in determining social position. Therefore, in the evolution of social networks, it makes sense that the nurture factor plays a primary role. The result reveals a fresh aspect of the “nature vs. nurture” discussion from the perspective of network science: although both the nature and nurture factors impact individual human behaviors, the nurture factor assumes a more prominent role when determining collective behaviors within social networks, rather than focusing solely on individuals. Other systems have less pronounced structural feedback, and are thus determined by the innate attributes to a larger extent. As such, we propose that in the evolution of non-social networks, the nature factor of nodes should play a leading role. Therefore, whether nodes in complex networks are people or not determines the dominant factor influencing the evolution of complex networks.

Since the publication of Galton’s renowned paper in 1865 36 , the exploration of the relative effects of nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) on individuals has remained a central focus in the fields of biology and sociology, leading to a vast body of literature on this subject 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 . However, there have been relatively few studies that approach this discourse from the perspective of complex systems. Our research provides a refreshing insight into the ongoing “nature vs. nurture” discussion: while individual variations are significant (and may not be predictable), collective behaviors demonstrate predictability and can be categorized as either pro-nature or pro-nurture. This discovery underscores the potential of interdisciplinary studies that apply complex networks to diverse disciplines.

In conclusion, we propose a model of network evolution aiming to shed light on the evolutionary origin of complex networks. The optimal fitting results of the analytical solutions in the model reproduce the degree distributions and degree ratio distributions of both static and dynamic networks. These findings indicate that the coupling of both nature and nurture factors of nodes plays a crucial role in the evolution of complex networks, and our model can rather universally account for the evolution of complex networks. However, the strength of the nature and nurture components of the growth might vary, which furthermore gives a characterization of the network growth. In social networks, the nurture factor of nodes is dominant, implying that individuals can improve their social value through their acquired efforts instead of solely relying on their innate background. Conversely, in non-social networks, the nature factor of nodes plays a leading role, where the innate attributes and functions of agents provided by the system determine their acquired state and development in the system, suggesting that whether nodes are people determines the dominant factor influencing the evolution of complex networks.

In our work, we have not explicitly addressed the issue of network directionality. The primary goal of our study is to investigate the universal mechanisms that can be adaptable to the evolution of both undirected and directed networks. For directed networks, we treat the sum of node outdegrees and indegrees as the total degrees of a node, followed by calculating the degree distribution without explicitly delving into the directionality consideration. One way to modify our model to impose directionality is to specify edge directions between two nodes via some additional assumptions. For instance, in cases where two nodes are selected at each time step, the direction of the edge could be determined from the node with a lower weight or degree to the node with a higher weight or degree. In the future, it would be interesting to explore the effect of imposing network directionality on the network evolution (cf. ref. 28 ).

In spirit, our work conforms to the tradition of emphasizing the emergent scale-freeness of network evolution models. An interesting future direction would be to link this model to the other tradition of identifying scale-freeness by statistical tests 14 . One could potentially do this with a more direct statistical inference of the growth mechanisms (cf. ref. 44 ). Regardless, even in such a well-studied topic as general growth models for fat-tailed networks, there are open questions with unexplored solutions.

Degree and degree-ratio distributions of the nature–nurture model

Let node i have weight ω i and denote n i ( T ,  k ) as the probability that such a node has degree k at time step T . Following standard process 3 , we derive the Markovian rate equation for node i ,

where Π( ω ,  k ) is the preferential probability given in the main text [Eq. ( 1 )]. The initial condition of Eq. ( 8 ) is

and the boundary condition is

We are also interested in \(P\left(({k}_{i},\, {k}_{j})| (i,\, j)\right)\) , the conditional probability of randomly choosing a link that connects two nodes i and j of degrees k i and k j , respectively. To avoid potential overcounting, we always call the first selected node as i and the second selected node as j in our bidirectional selection process, so that ( i ,  j ) and ( j ,  i ) are counted as different pairs by us. As a conditional probability, however, \(P\left(({k}_{i},\, {k}_{j})| (i,\, j)\right)\) corresponds to the frequency of counting instances sampled from the pool of all links (~ T ), not nodes ( ≁ N ), and therefore one cannot directly establish a Markovian rate equation that is similar to Eq. ( 8 ). To circumvent this, for any pair of nodes i and j with weights ω i and ω j respectively, we introduce an auxiliary variable \({n}_{ij}(T,\, k,\, {k}^{{\prime} },\, (i,\, j))\) that denotes the joint probability of the spontaneous happening of three events at time step T : (1) node i has degree k , (2) node j has degree \({k}^{{\prime} }\) , and (3) i and j are connected.

Now, the Markovian rate equation for \({n}_{ij}(T,\, k,\, {k}^{{\prime} },\, (i,\, j))\) is given by

The first three terms of Eq. ( 11 ) account for the probability that, when nodes i and j are already connected at time step T , whether they will acquire (or not) a new link to satisfy the conditions on their degrees being k and \({k}^{{\prime} }\) at time step T  + 1. The last term accounts for the probability that, when nodes i and j are not connected at time step T (which approximately happens with probability \({n}_{i}(T,\, k-1){n}_{j}(T,\, {k}^{{\prime} }-1)\) when the network is sparse), whether i and j will be connected and match all three conditions at the next time step. The initial condition of Eq. ( 11 ) is

and the boundary conditions are

If we can solve n i ( T ,  k ) [Eq. ( 8 )] and \({n}_{ij}(T,\, k,\, {k}^{{\prime} },\, (i,\, j))\) [Eq. ( 11 )], which are functions of ω i (and ω j ), then both degree distribution and degree ratio distribution can be calculated given the node weight distribution ρ ( ω ), which we have assumed to be a continuous power-law distribution ρ ( ω ) =  c ω − α within the range \(1\le \omega \le {\omega }_{\max }\) , given the normalization coefficient \(c=\left(1-\alpha \right)/\left({\omega }_{\max }^{1-\alpha }-1\right)\) . The DD is simply given by

To derive the degree ratio distribution, one has

which is the joint probability of randomly choosing a pair of nodes i and j that not only are connected but also have degrees k i and k j . Then, the degree ratio distribution is given by 17

where in the second step we have used Bayes’ rule, given that P ( i ,  j ) =  T / N 2 . Inserting Eq. ( 15 ) into Eq. ( 16 ) gives rise to P ( η ).

Unfortunately, Eqs. ( 8 ) and ( 11 ) are difficult to solve. This is since the implicit time dependence of the preferential probability Π( ω ,  k ) is intractable. However, special solutions can be found under certain limits:

In the nature-only limit, we can eliminate the nurture factor by letting b  →  ∞ , while keeping the power-law exponent α of the weight distribution being finite. This reduces Eq. ( 1 ) to

which is independent of k . Hence, our introduced model reduces to a pure bidirectional-selection fitness model with a power-law weight (fitness) distribution, for which both the solutions of P ( k ) and P ( η ) are known 17 . The results are given in the main text [Eqs. ( 4 ) and ( 5 )].

In the nurture-only limit, we can eliminate the nurture factor by letting α  →  ∞ , which also implies \({\omega }_{\max }\to 1\) . This reduces Eq. ( 1 ) to

given that \({\omega }_{i}\simeq \bar{\omega }\simeq 1\) and ρ ( ω )  ≃   δ ( ω  − 1). Hence, our introduced model reduces to a preferential attachment model but without the growth of N . For small b , analytical solutions of P ( k ) and P ( η ) can be found [Eqs. ( 6 ) and ( 7 )].

In the nature-nurture crossover, i.e., when both the bias b and the power-law exponent α are finite, it is possible to derive an approximate solution by the following ansatz,

This is to explicate the time dependence of Π( ω ,  k ) [Eq. ( 1 )], by assuming that its denominator increases linearly with time T . Such a linear approximation is exact in the nurture-only limit (where χ  = 2), but we observe that the linear approximation still holds even when taking the nature factor into account, as long as the variance of ω is not too great. Since higher ω i correlates with higher expectation of k i , we expect the following inequality,

which implies χ  ≥ 2. The more variability there is in the distribution of ω , the larger χ is. To proceed, we employ numerical simulations to fix the parameter χ . Specifically, given a set of model parameters \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b , we run simulations of the nature-nurture model and fit \(\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{i=1}^{N}{\omega }_{i}{k}_{i}\) as a function of T , deriving the corresponding χ . The parameter χ is further put in Eq. ( 1 ) to solve for P ( k ) and P ( η ), which, in turn, are used to fit the model parameters \({\omega }_{\max }\) , α , and b . This leads to a set of self-consistent equations which converge to an optimal (or locally optimal) fit. For small b , the final solutions of P ( k ) and P ( η ) are similar to the nurture-only case, integrated over all possible ω i and ω j , given by

where A  =  b and \({B}_{i}={\left(b{\chi }^{-1}N{T}^{-1}\right)}^{2{\chi }^{-1}{\omega }_{i}{\bar{\omega }}^{-1}}\) , respectively. The analytical results agree with simulation results (Supplementary Fig.  1) .

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The processed data used in this study are available in the Colorado Index of Complex Networks (ICON) database [ https://icon.colorado.edu ].

Code availability

Custom code that supports the findings of this study is available at https://github.com/bnzu/nnne .

Jennings, H. Structure of leadership: development and sphere of influence. Sociometry 1 , 99–147 (1937).

Article   Google Scholar  

Price, D. J. S. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 27 , 292–306 (1976).

Newman, M. E. J. Networks: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Dorogovtsev, S. N., Goltsev, A. V. & Mendes, J. F. F. Critical phenomena in complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 , 1275–1335 (2008).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Song, C., Havlin, S. & Makse, H. A. Self-similarity of complex networks. Nature 433 , 392–395 (2005).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Radicchi, F., Ramasco, J. J., Barrat, A. & Fortunato, S. Complex networks renormalization: flows and fixed points. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 148701 (2008).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zeng, A. et al. The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems. Phys. Rep. 714 , 1–73 (2017).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Aiello, W., Chung, F. & Lu, L. A random graph model for power law graphs. Exp. Math. 10 , 53–66 (2001).

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Newman, M. E. J. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 46 , 323–351 (2005).

Krapivsky, P. L., Rodgers, G. J. & Redner, S. Degree distributions of growing networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 , 5401–5404 (2001).

Oikonomou, P. & Cluzel, P. Effects of topology on network evolution. Nat. Phys. 2 , 532–536 (2006).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Voitalov, I., van der Hoorn, P., van der Hofstad, R. & Krioukov, D. Scale-free networks well done. Phys. Rev. Research   1 , 033034 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286 , 509–512 (1999).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   PubMed   MATH   Google Scholar  

Broido, A. D. & Clauset, A. Scale-free networks are rare. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1017 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Artico, I., Smolyarenko, I., Vinciotti, V. & Wit, E. How rare are power-law networks really? Proc. R. Soc. A 476 , 20190742 (2020).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   MATH   Google Scholar  

Holme, P. Rare and everywhere: perspectives on scale-free networks. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1016 (2019).

Zhou, B., Meng, X. & Stanley, H. E. Power-law distribution of degree–degree distance: a better representation of the scale-free property of complex networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 14812–14818 (2020).

Serafino, M. et al. True scale-free networks hidden by finite size effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2013825118 (2021).

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   PubMed   MATH   Google Scholar  

Gjoka, M., Kurant, M., Butts, C. T. & Markopoulou, A. Walking in Facebook: a case study of unbiased sampling of OSNs. In 2010 Proc. IEEE Infocom 1–9 (IEEE, 2010).

Myers, S. A., Sharma, A., Gupta, P. & Lin, J. Information network or social network? the structure of the Twitter follow graph. In Proc. 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web 493–498 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2014).

Chen, Q., Chang, H., Govindan, R. & Jamin, S. The origin of power laws in Internet topologies revisited. In Proc. Twenty-first Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies , Vol. 2 608–617 (IEEE, 2002).

Dimitrov, D., Singer, P., Lemmerich, F. & Strohmaier, M. What makes a link successful on Wikipedia? In Proc. 26th International Conference on World Wide Web 917–926 (2017).

Eden, T., Jain, S., Pinar, A., Ron, D. & Seshadhri, C. Provable and practical approximations for the degree distribution using sublinear graph samples. In Proc. 2018 World Wide Web Conference 449–458 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018).

Niu, J., Peng, J., Shu, L., Tong, C. & Liao, W. An empirical study of a Chinese online social network–Renren. Computer 46 , 78–84 (2013).

Garcia, D., Mavrodiev, P. & Schweitzer, F. Social resilience in online communities: the autopsy of Friendster. In Proc. First ACM Conference on Online Social Networks 39–50 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2013).

Clauset, A., Tucker, E. & Sainz, M. The Colorado Index of Complex Networks. https://icon.colorado.edu (2016).

Caldarelli, G., Capocci, A., De Los Rios, P. & Muñoz, M. A. Scale-free networks from varying vertex intrinsic fitness. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 258702 (2002).

Pagan, N., Mei, W., Li, C. & Dörfler, F. A meritocratic network formation model for the rise of social media influencers. Nat. Commun. 12 , 6865 (2021).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meng, X. & Zhou, B. Scale-free networks beyond power-law degree distribution. Chaos Solitons Fractals 176 , 114173 (2023).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bianconi, G. & Barabási, A.-L. Bose-Einstein condensation in complex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 , 5632 (2001).

Merton, R. K. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159 , 56–63 (1968).

Lee, E. & Holme, P. Social contagion with degree-dependent thresholds. Phys. Rev. E 96 , 012315 (2017).

Krackhardt, D. & Porter, L. W. The snowball effect: turnover embedded in communication networks. J. Appl. Psych. 71 , 50 (1986).

Evans, T. S. & Chen, B. Linking the network centrality measures closeness and degree. Commun. Phys. 5 , 1–11 (2022).

Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Practical Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 1998).

Galton, F. Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Mag. 12 , 318–327 (1865).

Google Scholar  

McCall, R. B. Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: a proposed integration with respect to mental development. Child Dev. 52 , 1–12 (1981).

Plomin, R. Nature, nurture, and social development. Soc. Dev. 3 , 37–53 (1994).

Ridley, M. & Pierpoint, G. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes us Human , Vol. 19 (HarperCollins, 2003).

Robinson, G. E. Beyond nature and nurture. Science 304 , 397–399 (2004).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Longino, H. E. Studying Human Behavior (University of Chicago Press, 2013).

Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8 , 340–357 (2013).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Plomin, R., Shakeshaft, N. G., McMillan, A. & Trzaskowski, M. Nature, nurture, and expertise. Intelligence 45 , 46–59 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Overgoor, J., Benson, A. & Ugander, J. Choosing to grow a graph: modeling network formation as discrete choice. In The World Wide Web Conference 1409–1420 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

B.Z. was supported by the Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of NUIST and the Qinglan Project of Jiangsu Universities. P.H. was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 21H04595. Z.G. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grant Number 72371137. X.L. was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China with Grant Numbers 72025405, 72088101 and 72001211, and the Hunan Science and Technology Plan Project with Grant Number 2020TP1013.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, the Research Institute for Risk Governance and Emergency Decision-Making, School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, 210044, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Bin Zhou & Zaiwu Gong

Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, FI-00076, Aalto, Finland

Petter Holme

Center for Computational Social Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, 657-8501, Japan

School of Computer, South China Normal University, 510631, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Choujun Zhan

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nanfang College Guangzhou, 510970, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, 410073, Changsha, Hunan, China

Network Science Institute and Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

Xiangyi Meng

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the research. B.Z. and X.M. conceived the research, performed the experiments, and analyzed the data. Z.G., C.Z., and Y.H. cleaned the data. B.Z. and X.M. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. P.H. and X.L. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiangyi Meng .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Jan Nagler and Nicolo Pagan for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhou, B., Holme, P., Gong, Z. et al. The nature and nurture of network evolution. Nat Commun 14 , 7031 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42856-5

Download citation

Received : 09 July 2023

Accepted : 24 October 2023

Published : 03 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42856-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Shots - Health News

These identical twins both grew up with autism, but took very different paths.

Jon Hamilton

These side-by-side photos show identical twins Sam and John Fetters. On the left, the twins on their first day of third grade; on the right, the brothers at home on Martha's Vineyard in March 2024. Family photo; Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

The Science of Siblings is a new series exploring the ways our siblings can influence us, from our money and our mental health all the way down to our very molecules. We'll be sharing these stories over the next several weeks.

Sam and John Fetters, 19, are identical twins at opposite ends of the autism spectrum.

Sam is a sophomore at Amherst College who plans to double major in history and political science. In his free time, he runs marathons.

John attends a special school, struggles to form sentences, and likes to watch Teletubbies and Sesame Street .

Two brothers. Same genes. Different flavors of autism.

To scientists, twins like Sam and John pose an important question: How can a disorder that is known to be highly genetic look so different in siblings who share the same genome?

The Science of Siblings

"That is one of the greatest mysteries right now in research on autism," says Dr. Stephanie Morris , a pediatric neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore.

Solving that mystery could help explain autism's odd mix of nature and nurture, Morris says. It also might help "modify the trajectory" of autistic children experiencing speech and language delays, or difficulty with social communication.

Identical twins on separate paths

Sam and John are spending the weekend with their mom, Kim Leaird, at the family's apartment in West Tisbury, a small town on Martha's Vineyard.

The twins are crowded together on a couch. Even seated, they look tall. Standing, Sam is 6 feet, 5 inches, his brother just an inch shorter.

John lets Sam do most of the talking. He frequently touches his brother, who sometimes takes his hand.

John has "a truly tremendous amount of empathy," Sam says. "He's able to be very supportive."

When Sam and his mother were at odds, John would comfort him. And when Sam ran track and cross country in high school meets, he'd see his brother at the finish line, "jumping up and down because he was so happy."

When John speaks, it's often about Sesame Street characters, including his favorite: Cookie Monster.

Early in life, Sam (left) and John were much more similar than they may seem today. "They both did not wave, they didn't respond to their name, they both had a lot of repetitive movements," says their mother, Kim Leaird. Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

Early in life, Sam (left) and John were much more similar than they may seem today. "They both did not wave, they didn't respond to their name, they both had a lot of repetitive movements," says their mother, Kim Leaird.

Why that particular Muppet?

"He likes cookies!" John says.

Early in life, Sam and John were much more similar than they may seem today, Leaird says.

"They both did not wave, they didn't respond to their name, they both had a lot of repetitive movements," she says.

At age 2, neither was speaking. So Leaird enrolled them in an early intervention preschool.

At the heart of this cozy coffee shop lies a big sister's love for her little brother

It worked for Sam.

"He started talking and has never stopped," Leaird says. "It was only then we were like, 'Well, what's going on with John?"

She moved John to a more intensive program. Even so, he didn't begin using words until he was 4.

"The earliest twin studies really helped to debunk this theory that autism was caused by parenting," says Dr. Stephanie Morris, a pediatric neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore. Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

"The earliest twin studies really helped to debunk this theory that autism was caused by parenting," says Dr. Stephanie Morris, a pediatric neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore.

And over the next few years, Sam says, it became clear that he and John were on different paths.

"When we were kids, he was really passionate about Sesame Street; I was really passionate about Thomas the Tank Engine," Sam says.

But later, "I started moving to other passions and he just kept being passionate about Sesame Street ," Sam says, "which is totally valid."

What twin studies reveal about autism

When Sam and John were 5, Leaird enrolled them in a study of identical twins with autism.

"I just thought it might be good to see if we could find answers," Leaird says — especially "to help John, if we could."

The family was living in Maryland at the time. So Sam and John were evaluated at Kennedy Krieger Institute , which is known for treating children with developmental disabilities.

Studies like the one involving Sam and John have played a critical role in understanding autism since the 1970s.

"The earliest twin studies really helped to debunk this theory that autism was caused by parenting," Morris says. Under this theory, moms took the brunt of the blame, supposedly for being "cold and distant and detached from their child."

Those studies showed that autism was largely a product of genetics, not parenting.

Have a story about your sibling? Share it with us!

In 2019, a study of 366 pairs of identical twins changed the field again.

The study confirmed earlier research showing that if one twin had autism, there was a 90% chance the other would too.

"However, the level, or the severity in which the twins were manifesting the diagnosis, was incredibly different," Morris says.

The finding suggests that autism symptoms can be greatly influenced by events that happen after conception.

These events could include mutations in dividing fetal cells, or something that causes certain genes to be switched on or off.

Another possibility, Morris says, is that the severity of symptoms is affected by different experiences during pregnancy and in the first few months of life.

"There's something in very very early development that might be unique to one of the twins and not the other," she says. "That could be something as simple as an infection."

A hole in the heart

Both John and Sam were born with anatomical anomalies that required surgery.

Sam had a hernia that needed repair, but it was surgery that could wait until he was 5. John had a hole in his heart that was affecting his growth and had to be fixed when he was still an infant.

Sam's surgery went smoothly. But John developed an infection in the incision surgeons had made in his chest.

The infection was from drug-resistant staph bacteria. So John went back to the hospital and spent a month on powerful antibiotics pumped directly into a vein near his heart.

There's no way to know whether that experience changed the course of John's autism.

How to have a 'grown up' relationship with a sibling

"It's really only later that I thought, well, maybe it was the staph infection and John's environment when he was so little," Leaird says.

Regardless of what causes twins to end up at different places on the autism spectrum, these siblings seem to have a special relationship, Morris says.

When the boys spent a year in the same school, Sam did fine, but John struggled and had some noisy meltdowns. Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

When the boys spent a year in the same school, Sam did fine, but John struggled and had some noisy meltdowns.

"I think there's an understanding that 'My twin isn't quite as capable of communicating in the way that they need to, so I'll help them with that,'" she says.

That description fits Sam and John.

When asked to name his favorite episode of Sesame Street , John blurts out a series of words: "Abby makes the seasons change." Sam understands immediately and quickly steps in to explain.

" There's an episode with Abby Cadabby, Rosita and Zoe, where they dance around with the seasons changing," Sam says. "I think that's the one he's referring to."

His brother's keeper

Sam has always looked out for his brother, Leaird says.

When the boys spent a year in the same school, she says, Sam did fine, but John struggled and had some noisy meltdowns.

"Sam would hear him from his classroom, and he would just flee," Leaird says. "He would get up and run to his brother to help him and to translate for him."

Now that Sam is off at college, he worries about his brother, whose limited speech and flapping arms can make him the target of insults and ridicule.

"One of the ways you avoid that is trying to present [as] more neurotypical," Sam says. "I can do that. My brother can't."

Sam has always looked out for his brother. But now that he has moved away for college, he worries about John. Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

Sam has always looked out for his brother. But now that he has moved away for college, he worries about John.

Actually being neurotypical isn't something Sam wants for his brother or himself.

"I think I approach the world in interesting ways," Sam says, noting that autism has contributed to his passion for history and running.

John's autism is part of the "amazing and creative world in his head," Sam says, a world that includes Teletubbies and Muppets, as well as people and places.

Even so, Sam wishes his brother could use words the way he does.

"We are identical twins in almost every other way — laugh in the same way, cry in the same way, see the day in the same way, love the same way," Sam says. "He should absolutely have that ability to speak. He should have that. And him not having that is so unfair."

So for now, Sam plans to keep using his own words to help say what his brother can't.

Twin brothers Sam and John take a walk outside their family home on Martha's Vineyard. Jodi Hilton for NPR hide caption

Twin brothers Sam and John take a walk outside their family home on Martha's Vineyard.

More from the Science of Siblings series:

• The order your siblings were born in may play a role in identity and sexuality
• A gunman stole his twin from him. This is what he's learned about grieving a sibling
• In the womb, a brother's hormones can shape a sister's future
• family relationships
• early child development
• identical twins
• Science of Siblings
• twin studies
• autism spectrum disorder

Stay up to Date

First fridays 2024 - may.

Friday, May 3, 2024 at 5pm

May 3  |  The Plant Clones Are Coming

Featuring Live Music from JaRon Marshall and Dave Harrington/Max Jaffe/Patrick Shiroishi , DJ set from Wyldeflower (KCRW/Dublab), Discussion with Rare Plant Ecologist Kevin Alison hosted by Dr. Yewande Pearse , Sensory Lounge featuring LAVA (Los Angeles Video Artist), Femme House, Sad Girl Creamery, Herbalaria, and more!

If you are interested in learning more about 2024 First Fridays series, click First Fridays 2024: From Feelings to Pheromones.  

Our Featured Discussion! 

Discussion  | level 2, north american mammal hall |  6:30–7:30 pm  .

The Micropropagation Connection: Our Relationship With Plants And How Cloning Plants Can Affect The Greater Biosphere:  : An up close look at the micropropagation of Catalina Island’s Rarest Plants with Rare Plant Ecologist, Kevin Alison.  We examine how applications in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and plant breeding has made cloning plants a fast growing trend. How can micropropagation impact the plants in our lives?  What does the use of plant tissue culture mean for you and me?  How can micropropagation help in preserving endangered plants?  Plant clones have actually been around! We look at how asexual reproduction has taken place millions of years before sexual reproduction.  *Seating is limited. Please arrive early.

OUR MODERATOR

Dr. Yewande Pearse is a neuroscientist, public speaker, and science communicator with twenty years of research experience in various facets of Neuroscience at leading institutions such as the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King's College London and The Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA. Driven by a mission to redefine where science storytelling belongs and a belief in the power of science to connect people and communities, Dr. Pearse has collaborated with a diverse array of organizations, including the Sundance Film Festival, Headspace, The Natural History Museum, California Science Center, Female Collective, TEDMED, DEEM Journal, Grow Magazine, Dublab Radio, and NTS Radio.

Kevin Alison is the Rare Plant Ecologist for the Catalina Island Conservancy. He uses his education and experience as a conservationist, plant scientist, and horticulturalist to ensure the rare plants of Santa Catalina Island do not go extinct.

We aim to make NHM an exciting, educational, and enjoyable experience for everyone. If you have any questions about your visit and the accessibility services we offer, contact our Call Center at 213.763.3466 or email [email protected]

Images from past First Fridays:

Live Music and DJ Set In the Nature Gardens Stage! 

Jaron marshall | nature gardens | 9 pm.

JaRon Marshall + the collective is a 4-piece instrumental group from Austin, Texas. It features JaRon Marshall (Black Pumas), Sam Howden (Soul Food Horns, Coleslaw.Records, Slug), Michael Longoria (Bob Schneider, Patty Griffin), Chris Loveland (Clunis). They recently recorded their debut album in Austin, Texas at Black Pumas’ producer, Adrian Quesada’s Electric Deluxe Recorders. They are inspired by jazz-hop influencers such as Robert Glasper and Chris Dave, as well as the modern spiritualists Kamasi Washington and Shabaka Hutchings.

Dave Harrington/Max Jaffe/Patrick Shiroishi  | Nature Gardens | 8 pm

Together, on their debut recording Speak, Moment, Dave Harrington, Max Jaffe, and Patrick Shiroishi establish hypnotic and richly textured guitar-driven tapestries colored with the effervescent thread of a yearning saxophone melody that might be torn loose in an instant by thunderous percussion or febrile grooves. 

DJ Wyldeflower (KCRW/Dublab)  | Nature Gardens | 5–8 pm

Rocio " Wyldeflower " Contreras aka Ro is an on-air radio host and DJ on 89.9 KCRW & dublab, a budding music supervisor, and creative from Pasadena, California. With decades of experience in art, festival, orchestral concert production and programming. Ro is inspired by discovery; exploring new and classic sounds from all over the globe ranging from tropicalia, mpb, soul, funk, jazz & beyond. Catch her behind the turntables setting intention with her vinyl collection & carefully curated otherworldly sonic selections.  

Special Pop-Up Experiences!

Explore the museum and visit the pop-up experiences, including specially curated presentations from our Research & Collections and Museum Educators and our Sensory Lounge with guest artists and vendors.

NHM's Research and Collections | Otis Booth Pavilion–Ground Level

Explore the work and collections of NHM with specially-curated displays. We'll examine the forces that shape the behaviors of life forms large and small.

Museum Educators Pop-ups | East Entrance–Welcome Table | 5:30 and 7:30 pm  

Join one of our knowledgeable Museum Educators in a series of 30-minute pop-up presentations throughout the Museum to get first-hand insights into our exhibits and vast collections. Meet the M.E.s at the top of the steps near the Welcome Table located at our East Entrance. 

SENSORY LOUNGE | Level 1 Foyer

SIGHT:   LAVA (LOS ANGELES VIDEO ARTISTS)  Founded in 2003, LAVA is a community of video artists and creative technologists working primarily in the field of immersive experiential digital art. The goal of the LAVA community is to promote and nurture the evolution of video art with the latest technological magic in the greater Los Angeles area. 

Artists Featured In April: Ben Koffman aka Society of Shadows , Noelle Gonzalez aka Kosoz , Alex Guaring aka Sick Delicious

SOUND: Soundscape Curated by FEMME HOUSE featuring GeeXella:   Femme House creates opportunities for women, gender-expansive, BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+  creatives in the technical and behind the scenes areas of music. They are developing the future producers, mixers, engineers, DJs, artists, and executives of the industry by providing education and scholarships, cultivating community, furthering visual representation, and leveraging our platform to amplify the voices of marginalized communities.   

GeeXella (pronounced Jee-EL-LUH) is an AfroLatinx, Non-binary, and Queer transdisciplinary artist. They are currently occupying space in Muscogee Creek Land, also known as Atlanta, GA. They engage with their work as an extension of cultural organizing for the liberation of Black and marginalized people. 

TASTE: Sad Girl Creamery is a small batch ice cream company based in Los Angeles, California. The owner, SueEllen Mancini, draws inspiration from her own Latin American heritage and honors the heritage of others in her flavors and ice cream novelties. Aside from creating delicious ice cream SueEllen also uses her social media outlets to bring attention to mental health awareness in her community. 

SCENT:   Herbalaria is a family company bridging the rich heritage of Filipino plant healing tradition and culture with the demands of contemporary wellness. The company produces modern-day skin and spiritual care products deeply rooted in tradition, utilizing the wisdom passed down through generations.  Founder Katuuran Lyn Pacificar is a Visayan shaman, driven by a passion for preserving her family’s Philippine healing heritage. Herbalaria creates contemporized wellness products that are made in ritual with Filipino traditional botanicals, love, and good intentions.

Food Trucks and Pop-Ups

Policy and rules.

Your safety is our top priority. Please read the full covid-19 safety guidelines . 

SPONSORED BY

MEDIA SPONSOR

EVENT PARTNER

Stratechery by Ben Thompson

On the business, strategy, and impact of technology.

Gemini 1.5 and Google’s Nature

It was impossible to miss the leading message at yesterday’s Google Cloud Next keynote : Google has the best infrastructure for AI. This was CEO Sundar Pichai in his video greeting:

I want to highlight just a few reasons Google Cloud is showing so much progress. One is our deep investments in AI. We’ve known for a while that AI would transform every industry and company, including our own. That’s why we’ve been building AI infrastructure for over a decade, including TPUs, now in their 5th generation. These advancements have helped customer train and serve cutting-edge language models. These investments put us in the forefront of the AI platform shift.

Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian made the priority clear as well:

Today we’re going to focus on how Google is helping leading companies transform their operations and become digital and AI leaders, which is the new way to cloud. We have many important advances, starting with our infrastructure.

What was most interesting about the keynote, though, is what that infrastructure makes possible, and, by extension, what that says about Google’s ability to compete.

One of the most surprising things about large language models (LLMs) is how much they know; from the very beginning, though, hallucinations have been a concern. Hallucinations are, of course, part of what makes LLMs so impressive: a computer is actually being creative! It’s also a feature that isn’t particularly impressive to the enterprise customers that this keynote was directed at.

To that end, Kurian, shortly after going over Google’s infrastructure advantages, talked about “grounding”, both in terms of the company’s Gemini model broadly, and for enterprise use cases specifically in the context of Google’s Vertex AI model management service:

To augment models, Vertex AI provides managed tooling to connect your model to enterprise applications and databases, using extensions and function-calling. Vertex also provides retrieval augmented generation (RAG) combining the strengths of retrieval and generative models to provide high quality personalized answers and recommendations. Vertex can augment models with up-to-date knowledge from the web and from your organization, combining generative AI with your enterprise truth. Today we have a really important announcement: you can now ground with Google Search, perhaps the world’s most trusted source of factual information, with a deep understanding of the world’s knowledge. Grounding Gemini’s responses with Google Search improves response quality and significantly reduces hallucinations. Second, we’re also making it easy to ground your models with data from your enterprise databases and applications, and any database anywhere. Once you’ve chosen the right model, tuned it, and connected it with your enterprise truth, Vertex’s MLOps can help you manage and monitor models.

A RAG implementation using Google Search is an obvious win, and mirrors ChatGPT’s integration with Bing (or Microsoft Copilot in Bing): the LLM provides answers when it can, and searches the web for things it doesn’t know, a particularly useful feature if you are looking for more recent information.

A more impressive demonstration of grounding, though, was in the context of integrating Gemini with Google’s BigQuery data warehouse and Looker business intelligence platform :

In this demo, the worker gets an alert that a particular product is selling out; using generative AI the worker can see sales trends, find similar models, and create a plan of action for dealing with declining inventory for delivery to her team.

What is notable is not the demo specifics (which is unapologetically made-up for Cymbal, Google’s demo brand ); rather, note the role of the LLM: it is not providing information or taking specific actions, but rather serving as a much more accessible natural language interface to surface and collect data that would otherwise take considerably more expertise and time. In other words, it is trustworthy because it is grounded through integration Google is promising with its other enterprise data services.

At the same time, that last section didn’t really follow on from the introduction: yes, those LLMs leveraging Google or BigQuery are running on Google’s infrastructure, but other companies or startups can build something similar. This is where the rest of Pichai’s introduction comes in:

We also continue to build capable AI models to make products like search, Maps, and Android radically more helpful. In December, we took our next big step with Gemini, our largest and most capable model yet. We’ve been bringing it to our products and to enterprises and developers through our APIs. We’ve already introduced our next generation Gemini 1.5 Pro. It’s been in private preview in Vertex AI. 1.5 Pro shows dramatically enhanced performance and includes a breakthrough in long context understanding. That means it can run 1 million tokens of information consistently, opening up new possibilities for enterprises to create, discover, and build using AI. There’s also Gemini’s multi-modal capabilities, which can process audio, video, text, code and more. With these two advances, enterprises can do things today that just weren’t possible with AI before.

Google hasn’t said how Gemini 1.5 was made, but clearly the company has overcome the key limitation of traditional transformers: memory requirements increase quadratically with context length. One promising approach is Ring Attention with Blockwise Transformers , which breaks long contexts into pieces to be computed individually even as the various devices computing those pieces simultaneously communicate to make sense of the context as a whole; in this case memory requirements scale linearly with context length, and can be extended by simply adding more devices to the ring topology.

This is where Google’s infrastructure comes in: the company not only has a massive fleet of TPUs, but has also been developing those TPUs to run in parallel at every level of the stack, from chip to cluster to even data centers (this latter requirement is more pertinent for training than inference); if there is a solution that calls for scale, Google is the best placed to provide it, and it seems the company has done just that with Gemini 1.5.

To that end, and per Pichai’s closing line, almost all of the other demos in the keynote were implicitly leveraging Gemini 1.5’s context window.

In a Gemini for Workspaces demo, the worker evaluated two statements of work against each other, and against the company’s compliance document:

Here are the key quotes:

Google Drive is ready without any additional AI pre-work… Each of these documents is over 70 pages. It would have taken me hours to review these docs, but instead Gemini is going to help me find a clean answer to save me a ton of time… Before I proceed with this vendor, I need to ensure that no compliance issues exist, and I’m going to be honest, I have not memorized every rule in our compliance rulebook because it is over 100 pages. I would have to need to scour the 80 pages of this proposal and compare it manually with the 100 pages of the rulebook. So instead, in the side panel I ask, “Does this offer comply with the following” and I’m going to just @-mention our compliance rulebook, hit Enter, and see what Gemini has to say. So interesting: Gemini has found an issue, because the supplier has not listed their security certifications. Because Gemini is grounded in my company’s data, with source citations to specific files, I can trust this response and start to troubleshoot before selecting a vendor.

The key distinction between this demo and the last one is that quote at the beginning: a large context window just works in a far greater number of use cases, without any fiddly RAG implementations or special connections to external data stores; just upload the files you need to analyze, and you’re off.

In a Creative Agent with Imagen demo, the worker was seeking to create marketing images and storyboards for an outdoor product:

Here is the key quote:

The creative agent can analyze our previous campaigns to understand our unique brand style and apply it to new ideas. In this case, the creative agent has analyzed over 3,000 brand images, descriptions, videos, and documents of other products that we have in our catalog, contained within Google Drive, to create this summary…The creative agent was able to use Gemini Pro’s 1 million token context window and it’s ability to reason across text, images, and video to generate this summary.

This was, to be fair, one of the weaker demos: the brand summary and marketing campaign weren’t that impressive, and the idea of creating a podcast with synthetic voices is technically impressive and also something that will never be listened to. That, though, is impressive in its own right: as I noted in an Update when Gemini 1.5 was first announced , “a massively larger context window makes it possible to do silly stuff”, and silly stuff often turns into serious capabilities.

In a Gemini Code Assistant Demo (formerly Duet AI for Developers), a developer new to a job (and the codebase) was tasked with making a change to a site’s homepage:

For the developers out there, you know that this means we’re going to need to add padding in the homepage, modify some views, make sure the configs are changed for our microservices, and typically, it would take me a week or two to even just get familiarized with our company’s code base which has over 100,000 lines of code over 11 services. But now, with Gemini Code Assist, as a new engineer on the team, I can be more productive than ever and can accomplish all of this work in just a matter of minutes. This is because Gemini’s code transformations with full codebase awareness allows us to easily reason through our entire codebase, and in comparison, other models out there can’t handle anything beyond 12,000 to 15,000 lines of code. Gemini with Code Assist is so intelligent that we can just give it our business requirements, including the visual design…Gemini Code Assist doesn’t just suggest code edits; it provides clear recommendations, and makes sure that all of these recommendations align with [the company’s] security and compliance requirements…

And the conclusion:

Let’s recap: behind the scenes Gemini has analyzed my entire codebase in GitLab; it has implemented a new feature; and has ensured that all of the code generated is compatible with my company’s standards and requirements.

Again, leave aside the implausibility of this demo: the key takeaway is the capabilities unlocked when the model is able to have all of the context around a problem while working; this is only possible with — and here the name is appropriate — a long context window, and that is ultimately enabled by Google’s infrastructure.

Google’s Nature

In case it isn’t clear, I think that this keynote was by far the most impressive presentation Google has made in the AI era, not least because the company knows exactly what its advantages are. Several years ago I wrote an Article called Microsoft’s Monopoly Hangover that discussed the company’s then-ongoing transition away from Windows as the center of its strategy; the central conceit was a comparison to Lou Gerstner’s 1990’s transformation of IBM.

The great thing about a monopoly is that a company can do anything, because there is no competition; the bad thing is that when the monopoly is finished the company is still capable of doing anything at a mediocre level, but nothing at a high one because it has become fat and lazy. To put it another way, for a former monopoly “big” is the only truly differentiated asset.

My argument was that business models could be changed: IBM did it, and Microsoft was in the process of doing so when I wrote that. Moreover, Gerstner had shown that culture could be changed as well, and Nadella did just that at Microsoft . What couldn’t be changed was nature: IBM was a company predicated on breadth, not specialization; that’s why Gerstner was right to not break apart the company but to instead deliver Internet solutions to enterprises. Similarly, Microsoft was a company predicated on integration around Windows; the company’s shift to services centered on Teams as Microsoft’s operating system in the cloud was also true to the company’s nature.

Google is facing many of the same challenges after its decades long dominance of the open web: all of the products shown yesterday rely on a different business model than advertising, and to properly execute and deliver on them will require a cultural shift to supporting customers instead of tolerating them. What hasn’t changed — because it is the company’s nature, and thus cannot — is the reliance on scale and an overwhelming infrastructure advantage. That, more than anything, is what defines Google, and it was encouraging to see that so explicitly put forward as an advantage.

Subscriber’s Daily Update

An interview with google cloud ceo thomas kurian about google’s enterprise ai strategy, personal day, the status of just walk out, tsmc gets chips act grant, an interview with benedict evans about regulation and ai.

Nature and nurture

Mar 31, 2019

90 likes | 200 Views

Genes v. Environment . Nature and nurture . Predispositions . Genes do not determine how we look or act, they predispose us It’s a possibility . Who Studies This Conflict?. Behavior Genetics

Share Presentation

• fraternal twin
• personality traits
• identical twins
• many similarities

Presentation Transcript

Genes v. Environment Nature and nurture

Predispositions • Genes do not determine how we look or act, they predispose us • It’s a possibility

Who Studies This Conflict? • Behavior Genetics • Focus on the extent to which heredity accounts for individual differences in behavior and thinking • Look at the effects of hereditary and environment • Evolutionary Psychology

Heritability • Extent to which the differences among people are attributable to genes • “inherit” “capable” • Can never say what percentage of an individual’s personality/intelligences is inherited • Heritability refers to the extent to which differences among people are attributable to genes • If we held constant environment, the heritability of a trait would increase

Study Techniques • Want to tease apart the influence of environment and heredity • Twin Studies • Identical Twins: formed from one fertilized egg that splits in two; genetically identical • Reared apart and together • Fraternal Twins: formed from separate fertilized eggs; are not more alike than ordinary siblings • Reared apart and together • A person whose identical twin has Alzheimer’s has a 60% risk of developing it; 30% if a fraternal twin • What about behavior? If you have a fraternal twin who has divorced the odds of you divorcing go up 1.6 times. If you have an identical twin – 5.5 times • Researchers have concluded that people’s differing divorce risks are 50% genetic • Adoption Studies

Results • The story of Jim and Jim • Identical twins (regardless of environment) have similar • Personalities • Intelligence levels • Abilities • Attitudes • Interests • Fears • Brain waves • Heart Rate • Temperaments (emotional reactivity and sensitivity) • Identical twins raised together had more personality similarities than identical twins raised apart • Criticisms • Many similarities can be found between strangers

Results cont • Adopted children’s personalities are more similar to their biological parents • Two adopted children reared in the same home are no more likely to share personality traits with each other than the child down the block • So does parenting matter? • Adopted children share similar with their adoptive parents regarding: • Attitudes • Values • Manners • Beliefs • Faith • Politics • Keep in mind, adoptive parents go through screening processes and child abuse, neglect, and divorce are rare in adoptive homes (meaning, adoptive homes have similar environments)

Why do children in the same family have such different personalities? • Unique peer experiences? • Because sibling relationships ricochet off each other, amplifying their differences? • Despite sharing half their genes, siblings have different combinations of genes an may evoke different kind of parenting?

Interaction • Some traits are fixed (we all have two eyes) • Most traits are liable to change with environmental experience • Genes can influence traits which affect responses, which affects environment • A genetic predisposition makes a child restless and hyperactive  angry response from parents  stressful environment triggers genes to manufacture neurotransmitters leading to depression • Genes and environment work together • Genes do not act as a blueprint resulting in the same result no matter the context, instead they react to the environment • Example: A particular gene will, in response to environmental stresses, help release a neurotransmitter involved in depression (gene doesn’t cause depression, but is part of the recipe)

• More by User

Nature, Nurture, and Behaviour

Nature, Nurture, and Behaviour. Behavioural Genetics. Genetic contribution to behaviour But also environmental role Interaction Could just as well say BG studies the role of environment on behaviour as that of genetics…. Polygenic Traits.

1.34k views • 72 slides

Nature requires Nurture

Nature requires Nurture. Initial wiring is genetically controlled Sperry Experiment But environmental input critical in early development Occular dominance columns Hubel and Wiesel experiment. Critical Periods in Development.

590 views • 45 slides

NATURE OR NURTURE?

NATURE OR NURTURE?. First language acquisition theories. FLA theories: Historical perspectives. 1. Behaviourism : (Pavlov, Skinner) Tabula rasa Imitation Stimulus-Response-Reinforcement Focus on the role of environment. Objections. 1. "What children say"

585 views • 18 slides

Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. Nurture. An IB Psychology Web Quest. INTRODUCTION. INTRODUCTION. TASK.

488 views • 8 slides

Nature vs. Nurture. A Psychology WebQuest. INTRODUCTION. INTRODUCTION. TASK.

524 views • 10 slides

Nature vs. Nurture. How Genes and Environment Influence Behavior. What is the study of genetic and environmental influences on behavior? BEHAVIORAL GENETICS. Every non-genetic influence in our lives is referred to as… ENVIRONMENT.

881 views • 38 slides

Nature/Nurture

Steinberg, Douglas (2006). Determining Nature vs. Nurture. Scientific American Mind, October/November 2006 , 12 – 14. Nature/Nurture. Zach Schlesinger and Alex Kagawa Professor Mills Psychology 100 Fall 2008. Introduction: Determining Nature vs. Nurture. Molecular evidence

385 views • 8 slides

Nature & Nurture

Nature & Nurture. Dr. Carolyn R. Fallahi. Nature-Nurture. Which is more important? The Diathesis stress model We figure out the relative amount of nature (genetics, biology, chemistry) & nurture (environment). What about psychiatric disorders?. Study Techniques. Twin Research

325 views • 8 slides

Nature and Nurture

Nature and Nurture. Biopsychology. Goals:. What is the nature-nurture issue? What are key issues in behavior genetics? What are the elements of the genetic code? How do twin studies and adoption studies help us to learn about nature and nurture influences?

461 views • 13 slides

Debate: Nature and Nurture

Debate: Nature and Nurture. The degree to which human behaviour is determined by genetics/biology ( nature ) or learned through interacting with the environment ( nurture ). Aims of lesson. To understand what is meant by the nature-nurture debate and to identify the main assumptions .

989 views • 28 slides

D64 : Nature and Nurture

D64 : Nature and Nurture. Science 7: Genetics. Extinction. Many species of plants and animals have lived and then completely died off through the ages Charles Darwin was an English scientist who 1st described the idea “Survival of the Fittest”

370 views • 25 slides

Nature and Nurture. Lesson Objectives All to define nature and nurture Most to explain the differences between nature and nurture SOME to evaluate the impact of nature and nurture on PIES. Starter On a post-it note write down a definition for nature and nurture

2.94k views • 10 slides

Nature via nurture

Nature via nurture. Mistaking the Problem?. Matt ridley, nature via nurture.

259 views • 13 slides

Nature vs Nurture

Nature vs Nurture. List characteristics ( biopotential ) that you have inherited from your parents in the format of the table below 2) Who are you most like genetically, your Mum’s side or Dad’s side?

643 views • 6 slides

Gender and nature/nurture

Gender and nature/nurture. Nature vs. nurture Gender development. The nature-nurture debate is a debate about the extent to which our behaviour is governed by the forces of biology and experiences/environment. Nature.

500 views • 10 slides

Nature Versus Nurture

Nature Versus Nurture. Neurons, The Brain and Nervous System Science 2 Fall 2014 Dr. Michael Sneary. Today ’ s Topics. The Concept of Nature Versus Nurture Overview of Function of the Nervous System Anatomy of a Neuron Stages of the development of the brain Developmental Milestones.

445 views • 28 slides

Nature/Nurture. Behavior Genetics: Predicting Individual Differences. Behavior Geneticists study our differences and weigh the relative effects of heredity and environment. Genes: Our Codes for Life. Chromosomes containing DNA ( deoxyribonucleic acid ) are situated in the nucleus of a cell.

341 views • 14 slides

Nature vs. Nurture. X. ( via ) or “Why we are who we are”. Dr. Swoap Intro to Psychology. Fundamental Question. How are we shaped by both our heredity and life history?. Behavior Genetics. Attempts to explain individual differences Twin studies (U of M) (see Fig. 6.3)

336 views • 25 slides

Nature vs. Nurture. Does the environment affect the traits of an organism ?. Fill It In …. Nature = ________________ Nurture = ________________. Nature vs Nurture.

585 views • 19 slides

Nature and Nurture. What is the difference between behavior genetics molecular genetics and evolutionary psychology ? What do we mean by nature and nurture?. Behavior Genetics: Predicting Individual Differences.

250 views • 20 slides

• Astrology News
• Horoscope News

Pisces, Horoscope Today, April 12, 2024: Creative solutions and emotional fulfillment ahead

About the Author

AstroDevam is a premium organisation providing ancient and authentic knowledge of Astrology, Vastu, Numerology, and Innovative Corporate Solutions with a contemporary perspective. AstroDevam, having patrons in more than 100 countries, has been promoted by Achary Anita Baranwal and Achary Kalki Krishnan, who not only have Master's Degrees in Astrology, but are engaged in teaching Scientific Astrology, Vastu, and Numerology for more than three decades. Read More

Visual Stories